Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-11-11, 03:23 PM   #1
1nterceptor
LET'S ROLL
Thread Starter
 
1nterceptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NEW YORK, NY - USA
Bikes: 2014 BMC Gran Fondo, 2013 Brompton S6L-X
Posts: 3,806
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Itís Time to End the Politicization of Cycling

For some reason, cycling has become politicized. If you ride a bike or are in favor of making your community more bike and pedestrian friendly, people assume you must be some kind of a liberal freak.

Far from the truth.

Though there is some conjecture about how this came to be Ė perhaps itís because the original ISTEA bill funding bike accommodations was sponsored by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1991? Who knows.

Read the full article:
http://www.vabike.org/politicization-of-cycling/
1nterceptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-11, 03:29 PM   #2
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,630
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Where it comes from is the notion that it is somehow anti-American to not drive...

"Cycling is European" somehow goes the thinking of some rather close-minded individuals... never mind that using foreign oil to power your "smog belching rolling living room" really does help fund terrorism.

Funny how some never quite get the connection.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 11:37 AM   #3
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1nterceptor View Post
For some reason, cycling has become politicized. If you ride a bike or are in favor of making your community more bike and pedestrian friendly, people assume you must be some kind of a liberal freak.

Far from the truth.

Though there is some conjecture about how this came to be – perhaps it’s because the original ISTEA bill funding bike accommodations was sponsored by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1991? Who knows.

Read the full article:
http://www.vabike.org/politicization-of-cycling/
Cycling has been the subject of political controversy since about 1944, then the law decided that bicycles were not vehicles and therefore that their use could be restricted, through restrictive laws, in ways that would be intolerable to those in political power, the motorists. Some cyclists recognized that obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles was better for them than obeying the restrictive laws, so there was a political controversy between two groups of road users, motorists and cyclists. However, while this was a political controversy, it was very lowkey and was confined to the actual traffic operating subject, because the motorists believed that nearly all cycling was juvenile and insignificant.

The "bike boom" that started in the 1960s caused motorists to recognize that adult cycling had not died. They decided, in California in 1971, to crack down on cyclists by creating a bikeway system that would force all cyclists to obey the restrictive laws (and new ones also). That sharpened the political conflict between motorists and cyclists.

Shortly after the motorists created the bikeway system designs, cycling became extremely political. Groups with any kind of agenda that could conceivably be tied to anti-motoring (oil crisis, air pollution, suburbia, road building, car manufacture, obesity, national defense, you've seen them all) jumped into the controversy on the side of the motorists. They chose to support the motorists' side of the bikeway controversy because they believed the motorists' lying propaganda that bikeways made cycling safe for incompetent cyclists. So, ever since 1975 bicycle transportation has been the field for intense political activity conducted by interests outside the field of cycling.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 12:55 PM   #4
Mithrandir
Senior Member
 
Mithrandir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Bikes: 2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail
Posts: 2,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree, but it's not going to happen. Even the fact that roads need to be repaved has now become a political issue, what with one party insisting that we no longer fund our transportation infrastructure. What hope can we possibly have of building bike lanes if we can't even get them to agree to roads in the first place?
Mithrandir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 12:57 PM   #5
billdsd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego, CA USA
Bikes:
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Where it comes from is the notion that it is somehow anti-American to not drive...

"Cycling is European" somehow goes the thinking of some rather close-minded individuals... never mind that using foreign oil to power your "smog belching rolling living room" really does help fund terrorism.
I usually don't hear "European" from the haters. They tend to prefer to claim that it's like China, because their agenda is to equate cycling with being poor and living under a totalitarian government. Calling it "European" is not negative enough for them.
billdsd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 01:03 PM   #6
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes:
Posts: 13,542
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Of course, the same thing is true of climate change, evolution, history, medicine, ...
Seattle Forrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 01:20 PM   #7
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Bikes: Fuji touring
Posts: 3,066
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Hmmm...I don't see as that politicized in my day to day rides and breaks in coffee shops and diners. Most people know I use my bike or walk to save on gas and auto wear and tear; as well as for health reasons. On my long rides i think most touring people will say ya get OOHS! and AHHHHS! when ya talk to folks about how far ya have gone. Its just that the liberal freaks who want gas at $10 a gallon dominate the debate and are the front face of cycling in the news media.
Roughstuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 01:30 PM   #8
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,630
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdsd View Post
I usually don't hear "European" from the haters. They tend to prefer to claim that it's like China, because their agenda is to equate cycling with being poor and living under a totalitarian government. Calling it "European" is not negative enough for them.
East coast / west coast thing. Here on the west coast, we hear the China thing, on the other coast or with certain political bent, it is a "liberal European thing."

Either way, it is just yet another excuse.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 01:42 PM   #9
Mithrandir
Senior Member
 
Mithrandir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Bikes: 2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail
Posts: 2,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdsd View Post
I usually don't hear "European" from the haters. They tend to prefer to claim that it's like China, because their agenda is to equate cycling with being poor and living under a totalitarian government. Calling it "European" is not negative enough for them.
I'm surprised you get that sophisticated of an answer. Usually here it's "gay", and that's as far as the conversation goes. "Dude, biking is gay", or "you look stupid".

Truly, they have a dizzying intellect.
Mithrandir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 01:46 PM   #10
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i like this article -

tom bowden, how to talk about bicycling to a conservative

Tom's got some good fodder in there...

Quote:
Originally Posted by how to talk about cycling to a conservative
Cycling saves money, saves lives and makes us stronger as individuals and as a nation. Spending money to support cycling is like putting money in the bank–it pays big dividends at low risk. It’s as all American as Mom’s apple pie.

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-11 at 01:49 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 01:56 PM   #11
Doohickie 
You gonna eat that?
 
Doohickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
Posts: 14,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Most cyclists in Texas are Republicans, according to what I've heard (from the advocacy group Bike Texas). Among the cyclists themselves it not so much of a political issue. Outside the cycling community, to make any changes to laws you need the political process, and the left more readily supports that (although, again, here in Texas there is reasonable support from the right as well). Our new mayor in Fort Worth is a 20+ year bike commuting Republican.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.



Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Doohickie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 03:37 PM   #12
DX-MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Two points:

1. ANY activity that is going to affect the lifestyles of a NOTICEABLE percentage of the population cannot help but become political. Acceptance of cycling as transportation is an effort that will affect the daily lives of 100 million people, in one way or another.

2. The 'politicizing' of cycling is due to the hot-potato, argument point/counterpoint that results from the expression of (sometimes) ignorant opinions. It's an issue that polarizes because people have become one-issue, knee-jerk fanatics to their personal points of view. If a person is against taxing the rich, he/she becomes a 'fellow' with Boehner and Cantor, regardless of any disagreement on other issues. . . until those other divisive issues become known.

People just HAVE to categorize and pigeonhole............

My transportational cycling has nothing to do with my political views, it has 100% to do with the FACT that I love to pedal!
DX-MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 04:50 PM   #13
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Cycling has been the subject of political controversy since about 1944, then the law decided that bicycles were not vehicles and therefore that their use could be restricted, through restrictive laws, in ways that would be intolerable to those in political power, the motorists. Some cyclists recognized that obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles was better for them than obeying the restrictive laws, so there was a political controversy between two groups of road users, motorists and cyclists. However, while this was a political controversy, it was very lowkey and was confined to the actual traffic operating subject, because the motorists believed that nearly all cycling was juvenile and insignificant.

The "bike boom" that started in the 1960s caused motorists to recognize that adult cycling had not died. They decided, in California in 1971, to crack down on cyclists by creating a bikeway system that would force all cyclists to obey the restrictive laws (and new ones also). That sharpened the political conflict between motorists and cyclists.

Shortly after the motorists created the bikeway system designs, cycling became extremely political. Groups with any kind of agenda that could conceivably be tied to anti-motoring (oil crisis, air pollution, suburbia, road building, car manufacture, obesity, national defense, you've seen them all) jumped into the controversy on the side of the motorists. They chose to support the motorists' side of the bikeway controversy because they believed the motorists' lying propaganda that bikeways made cycling safe for incompetent cyclists. So, ever since 1975 bicycle transportation has been the field for intense political activity conducted by interests outside the field of cycling.
One of the perks of BF membership is reading about this topic from a man who was not only an eyewitness, but probably did the most to politicize cycling. It's very interesting to read your take on it, even if i don't particularly agree with you. Thanks for taking the time!
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 05:35 PM   #14
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Posts: 6,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1nterceptor View Post
For some reason, cycling has become politicized. If you ride a bike or are in favor of making your community more bike and pedestrian friendly, people assume you must be some kind of a liberal freak.

Far from the truth.

Though there is some conjecture about how this came to be – perhaps it’s because the original ISTEA bill funding bike accommodations was sponsored by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1991? Who knows.

Read the full article:
http://www.vabike.org/politicization-of-cycling/
In the same way the assumption here is addressed, should also be used to address the assumption that anyone riding their bike legally, on the road does not have a genuine reason for going somewhere by bike instead of in a four-wheel monument to OPEC.
Chris516 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 05:40 PM   #15
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,630
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DX-MAN View Post
Two points:

1. ANY activity that is going to affect the lifestyles of a NOTICEABLE percentage of the population cannot help but become political. Acceptance of cycling as transportation is an effort that will affect the daily lives of 100 million people, in one way or another.

2. The 'politicizing' of cycling is due to the hot-potato, argument point/counterpoint that results from the expression of (sometimes) ignorant opinions. It's an issue that polarizes because people have become one-issue, knee-jerk fanatics to their personal points of view. If a person is against taxing the rich, he/she becomes a 'fellow' with Boehner and Cantor, regardless of any disagreement on other issues. . . until those other divisive issues become known.

People just HAVE to categorize and pigeonhole............

My transportational cycling has nothing to do with my political views, it has 100% to do with the FACT that I love to pedal!
The irony is that the end effect (mentioned in your item 1) is likely to positively affect that group of 100 million, but the reaction of that 100 million is to oppose any change.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 05:42 PM   #16
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
One of the perks of BF membership is reading about this topic from a man who was not only an eyewitness, but probably did the most to politicize cycling. It's very interesting to read your take on it, even if i don't particularly agree with you. Thanks for taking the time!
Thank you for the recognition, Roody. However, I think that I did little to politicize bicycle transportation. It is true that I opposed the motoring establishment's program for incompetent cycling on bikeways, but that was an argument entirely within the highway transportation field. It was limited to the difference between obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and obeying the anti-cyclist program created by the motoring establishment, and it concerned only the welfare of cyclists. The politicization occurred when people with outside interests jumped in to promote the motorists' bikeways in the belief that bikeways would advance their agendas for goals outside of bicycle transportation.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 05:47 PM   #17
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
good thing THAT'S all run its course.


The current problem with the politicization of bicycling at the federal level is a continued funding crisis, rescissions, and the threat of removing transportation enhancements funds or otherwise funneling them away from bicycling and active transportation projects to fix infrastructure.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 06:11 PM   #18
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
good thing THAT'S all run its course.


The current problem with the politicization of bicycling at the federal level is a continued funding crisis, rescissions, and the threat of removing transportation enhancements funds or otherwise funneling them away from bicycling and active transportation projects to fix infrastructure.
It's quite understandable that Bek is upset because the motoring establishment has started to consider that it has better ways to spend its money than its anti-cyclist program of incompetent cycling on bikeways, the program that Bek desires so strongly.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 06:22 PM   #19
DeadheadSF
Senior Member
 
DeadheadSF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Bikes: Giant Defy Advanced 3, Trek 520
Posts: 232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdsd View Post
their agenda is to equate cycling with being poor and living under a totalitarian government.
Well... looking around at the current state of affairs here in the good ol' Yew Ess Ay, we're not far off...
DeadheadSF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11, 08:53 PM   #20
Daves_Not_Here
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
i like this article -

tom bowden, how to talk about bicycling to a conservative

Tom's got some good fodder in there...
Good post, great article, agree with most of it. As someone who is one gun collection to the right of Attilla the Hun, I find cycling's connection with global warming alarmism and progressive politics to be a buzz kill. I now realize that I had unconsciously avoided cycling for years because I had associated it with leftism. Dumb of me.

Of course, I can't agree that spending public money to support cycling or any other non-essential item pays dividends, except to a particular bureaucracy and its vested constituency -- but I know I'm in the lunatic fringe.
Daves_Not_Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-11, 04:13 AM   #21
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
oh, it's dividends like 'greater public health', 'improved senior mobility', 'lessened childhood onset diabetes', 'lower cost maintaining the roads', 'better air quality' those types of things.

It's cheaper for communities than planning everyone drive everywhere, and pays a multitude of dividends.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-11, 09:42 AM   #22
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daves_Not_Here View Post
Of course, I can't agree that spending public money to support cycling or any other non-essential item pays dividends, except to a particular bureaucracy and its vested constituency -- but I know I'm in the lunatic fringe.
Cycling is certainly essential to me. I don't own a car. I use a bike to get to work, shopping, entertainment, doctor appointments, and almost everywhere else I go. IMO, bikes are the best transportation mode in my area.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-11, 09:51 AM   #23
No Whey
Senior Member
 
No Whey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
They chose to support the motorists' side of the bikeway controversy because they believed the motorists' lying propaganda that bikeways made cycling safe for incompetent cyclists.
That and that it was a much larger constituency probably helped too.
Why back a proposition with very little public support?
People would rather compromise and point to the gains, rather than lose completely and be righteously indignant.

Promote the benefits of cycling, and meanwhile the market determines if the value exceeds that of motoring.
Hidden costs can be exposed and hidden benefits extolled, but those don't have as much sway as social acceptance and convenience, despite the greater costs.

On the other hand, we politicize healthful eating habits.
So what's the difference? Crunchy granola is attributed to wealthy conservatives or not?
(I'm not stating that crunchy granola is a healthful food.)

Personally I find cycling far more beneficial (greater distances traveled, increased trip count, more fun had) if I can use the roadways. So I do that.

Just saw this, JF and thought of you:http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post13355838

Last edited by No Whey; 10-13-11 at 11:13 AM.
No Whey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-11, 02:59 PM   #24
Daves_Not_Here
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
Cycling is certainly essential to me. I don't own a car. I use a bike to get to work, shopping, entertainment, doctor appointments, and almost everywhere else I go. IMO, bikes are the best transportation mode in my area.
I should clarify -- what I meant is that it is not essential for the government to spend public money in order for you to engage in cycling.

The whole "the government should spend money on <insert pet cause here> because we will save money / receive benefits" is a sham to me. I've watched government spending drastically increase as a percentage of GDP over my entire life, and believe it will continue to do so until we collapse. I'm aware of no historical precedent to the contrary.
Daves_Not_Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-11, 04:54 PM   #25
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daves_Not_Here View Post
I should clarify -- what I meant is that it is not essential for the government to spend public money in order for you to engage in cycling.

The whole "the government should spend money on <insert pet cause here> because we will save money / receive benefits" is a sham to me. I've watched government spending drastically increase as a percentage of GDP over my entire life, and believe it will continue to do so until we collapse. I'm aware of no historical precedent to the contrary.
And where exactly would this country be if the government had never built our highway system? Do you really believe that anybody besides government could have or would have built I-94? Then why should the free market system be responsible for building bicycle infrastructure? Government is the most effective and most efficient provider of infrastructure for the common good. And yes, IMO bicycle infrastructure is for the common good.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:07 AM.